| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Meacher: One nice consequence of the moving of amendment No. 97 at this late stage was hearing the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) make a passionate case for the need to deal with New Zealand pigmyweed--or whatever its Australian name may be--and floating pennywort. However, this is a serious issue, and both the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster made a relevant case that needs to be addressed.
The amendment seeks to tackle the important issue of the effect of invasive non-native plant species on native fauna and flora. A number of recent articles have highlighted the problem that can be caused by such species, such as Japanese knotweed. It was not I but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who admitted that he was concerned because there was a considerable problem in his neighbour's garden, which might affect him as well. We are talking about non-native invasive species with the ability to oust native species, to damage crops, and to be a public nuisance all round.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment, but there are arguments against it. They are the same as those that were advanced in the case of a similar amendment tabled in Committee. I think that it was amendment No. 361. We need to deal with the issue in a co-ordinated way, taking account of the many varied factors arising from the introduction and spread of non-native species, animals as well as plants. I repeat--the hon. Member for Ashford mentioned this--that early next year we will undertake a full review of policy on non-native species that can present an ecological threat to the United Kingdom's indigenous wildlife, taking account of the work already done by the JNCC.
As I have said, this is a serious issue, but it is also complex. As former Ministers and current Opposition Front Benchers will be well aware, Government must consider such matters in a structured way, taking account of the implications of any policy changes for various parties. I should add--although it may be a less important point--that the amendment would introduce differences in the treatment of the sale of plants and animals under schedule 9, which is difficult to justify.
Mr. Brooke: I intervene because I have a sense that the Minister is bringing his speech to a conclusion. I take his point about the review that he expects to take place early next year; but given that 19 years have passed between the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Bill, and given the amount of literature that we have received from wildlife organisations during those 19 years
stressing the need for an update, will he tell us something about the possible legislative consequences of the review, and about the possible timetable?
Mr. Meacher: That is a fair question, although I am tempted to say that during 16 or 17 years of the 19 that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, his own Government--
Mr. Brooke: I was not making a political point.
Mr. Meacher: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was not. His point is that countryside Bills, or Bills dealing with wildlife, are relatively infrequent.
I obviously need to look at how far the matter can be dealt with through secondary legislation. If it requires primary legislation, for the reasons that I have given I do not see how I can advance the issue in the course of proceedings on this Bill, which are due to move to another place, or in the course of the year.
9 pm
I do not think that a gap of some 20 years between Bills such as this is inevitable. For example, a general Bill on the environment might well be able to deal with the matter, even though it would not be directly concerned with the countryside.
I do not say that in order to kick the matter into the long grass, which I think was the fear of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. I intend to deal with it, but I cannot do so before next year's proper and balanced review is complete.
Mr. Green: I cannot say that I am heartened by the Minister's response, which closely resembles his response to a similar amendment in Committee.
I take his point that animals and plants are both included in schedule 9, but I urge him not to let the best be the enemy of the good in this matter. If complications arise owing to the existence of separate regimes for plants and animals, then so be it. The problem is clearly defined, and the Bill could deal with it, so this seems to be the optimal time to make it do so.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and, I suspect, the Minister, I think that it may well be another couple of decades before a Bill such as this comes along again, regardless of what happens to party politics in the meantime. I hope that the Minister is right and that a proposal such as this can be added to another, more general Bill.
The Minister's argument about the review was not desperately convincing in Committee, and time has not improved it. The review will be based on the recommendations of the Joint Nature Conservancy Council, and will be conducted by the same people who conducted the previous review.
That review recommended the ban, so it seems overwhelmingly likely that the next one will too. All that will have happened in the intervening period is that a Bill that could have introduced the ban will have been passed, and we will have neglected to take the opportunity to do so. That does not seem an especially sensible way to proceed.
The Minister said that he did not intend to kick the matter into the long grass. If he fails to seize the opportunity presented by the Bill, he will be kicking it into the giant hogweed.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Local sites
'.--(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to adopt and maintain a scheme for maintaining a series of sites in their area (in this section referred to as "local sites"), to ensure the conservation, restoration and enhancement of species, habitat, geological and geomorphological features of substantive nature conservation value.
(2) The Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales shall from time to time give guidance with respect to the exercise of the duty of a local authority under subsection (1), and a local authority shall, in adopting and maintaining such a scheme, have regard to that guidance.
(3) Such guidance shall--
(a) specify standards for the identification of sites, notification of owners, occupiers and others and the provision of adequate information and advice as to the management of local sites;
(b) provide for the involvement of voluntary organisations, landowners and others in the adoption and maintenance of the scheme.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Nature Conservancy Council for England and the Countryside Council for Wales periodically to report on the operation and effectiveness of each scheme.
(5) In the formulation and exercise of their functions relating to land under any enactment every Minister, government department, local authority and public body shall further the conservation, restoration and enhancement of local sites.'.--[Miss McIntosh.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6--Species Action Plans and Habitat Action Plans--
'.--(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to ensure the preparation, maintenance and revision of lists of species and habitats in respect of which special measures shall be taken to monitor their population status in view of their vulnerability or international importance, and to determine--
(a) which species listed are priority species and require the development of Species Action Plans; and
(b) which habitats listed require the development of Habitat Action Plans.
(2) It shall be the duty of every Minister, government department, local authority and public body, so far as it is consistent with their primary functions, to further the objectives of Species Action Plans and Habitat Action Plans.'.
Miss McIntosh: New clause 4 would give local authorities a duty to adopt and maintain a scheme for maintaining a series of sites in their areas. The corollary of the duty is that they would be provided with the means and resources to do so.
Sites of special scientific interest are covered at some length in this Bill and other legislation, but areas of outstanding natural beauty and other wildlife sites are not. The new clause would promote the better protection and management of wildlife sites outside the SSSI network.
In managing, maintaining and resourcing such sites, local authorities should have regard to striking a balance between visitors' enjoyment of the sites, the interests of members of the farming community, and those of others on whose land those sites are situated. The interests of the farming community need to be recognised, given the depths of the crisis in which its members still find themselves.
Is it not surprising that at present there is no statutory provision covering such sites, not even in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981? The Minister may be surprised to hear that until now there has been no legal definition of what constitutes a wildlife site. I can see that the Minister shares my amazement and is hearing that fact for the first time. There is currently no legal definition of what constitutes a wildlife site, and that is a serious omission from the Bill and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
The aim of the new clause is to oblige all local authorities to ensure that they maintain a wildlife site system that follows common standards. The processes are in place in most of England and Wales already, but they need to respect commonly laid down standards. Wildlife sites would not create the equivalent of more SSSIs, because they would not have the same legal status.
Although I welcome the fact that the Bill makes improvements to rights of way legislation and wildlife protection, it fails adequately to protect those local wildlife sites. Such a scheme would not be too onerous for local authorities, or for the owners of the land on which the wildlife sites are situated. Local authorities could include policies to protect wildlife sites in all local plans, and advise on the effective implementation of the policies. Adverse development proposals would not be allowed or approved if they would damage or destroy the wildlife sites. Advice and support should be made available to the owner or manager of every wildlife site, and incentives should be offered to owners of such sites to maintain and enhance their value.
When common standards for wildlife site systems are recognised, sites should be identified using locally determined criteria, developed within a national framework. All wildlife site systems should be operated to common standards, and sites should be selected on the basis of sound adequate information. The owners and managers of sites should also be kept well informed of all stages of the process of identifying and protecting sites.
The common standards should be agreed by statutory environmental organisations, local authority bodies, relevant Government Departments and voluntary bodies. The conservation of local sites is crucial if declining wildlife trends are to be reversed and national biodiversity action plan targets are to be achieved.
The creation of a framework in law under which a local system of conservation is implemented will help to alleviate regional differences that currently exist. A legal framework should also reflect adequate resourcing for the system and provision of information and advice to landowners and the public.
Late last year the Government established the local site review group, which reported to Ministers in March this year. The new clause would directly enact the recommendations of that group and would deliver a concrete conservation gain for endangered species and habitats on the ground.
In moving new clause 4, I recognise that my constituency has only six SSSIs, because so many special sites have already been lost to agriculture, which is the most important industry in Vale of York. Areas of outstanding natural beauty, such as the Howardian hills, are also not adequately covered by the Bill. Therefore the best places for wildlife in Vale of York are local sites, which need better protection. A system such as I have outlined in new clause 4 needs to be developed, with common standards for local authorities. It should be backed by the Government so that local authorities know where the sites are and have a presumption against developments that would destroy their interest.
The Government recognised the issue by referring to the importance of local sites in its consultation paper on SSSIs, which led to the Bill, and by setting up the local sites review group. Will the Minister agree this evening that the issue will be rigorously pursued by the Government so that we will see action to protect wildlife sites properly in the future, and will he accept the new clause?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |